Long-Term Cohabitation Is Just As Good As Marriage

Many conservative, religious, anti-game and traditionalist types like to claim that this blog underplays the advantages offered to men by marriage. They redundantly quote studies purporting to show that married men live longer, healthier lives than single men. We here at Le Chateau have balked at such assertions, helpfully reminding our traditionalist, neoBiblical brethren that the same benefits found in marriage can be had living in long-term, loving relationships.

The reasoning is simple: the pro-marriage studies are conflating the benefit of living with someone under marital contract with freely living with someone who loves you. Sex, love and affectionate companionship don’t feel any more fulfilling when a piece of paper is signed. If you really think about it, it makes no sense that a man’s health would improve and his lifespan increase because he signed on the marital dotted line. Something else is at work here, and that something else is long-term shared love, with or without the imprimatur of a marriage license.

Of course, haters miss the nuance and continue their rampage against the dissolute lifestyle of the “player”, which they mistakenly believe this blog advocates. (In point of fact, this blog advocates learning game and the way of the alpha so that men have the freedom and the options to pursue whichever type of relationship with women they want, whether that be marriage and its attendant risks or frisky one night stands and their attendant, albeit lesser, risks.) “PUAs are wrong! Marriage is good for men!” they wail, refusing to even tackle the debate points to the contrary that crop up on this blog.

The Chateau warned the trads and supposed “realist” thinkers (this post at Audacious Epigone is a good example of the kind of statistical legerdemain I’m talking about) that the studies claiming health, sexual and psychological benefits accruing to men from marriage were comparing the wrong variables. The comparison should not be between married men and single men, but between married men and ALPHA men in unmarried relationships. Single, quasi-celibate betas and omegas bring down the averages for single men as a whole, and make married men look fucking great in comparison.

The claims about marriage benefits disappear once you alter the variables to reflect a fairer comparison:

2. Unmarried, cohabiting men enjoy the pleasure of thinner lovers than the fat wives enjoyed by married men. Strike one against the notion that men enjoy better sex within the confines of marriage, even if they are getting more of it than single betas. All indicators are that, once married and backed by the long arm of the law, women pretty much let themselves go to pot.

3. Unmarried players are just as desired by women for marriage as beta providers, (but unmarried players just don’t tend to commit to women as readily.) So marriage tells us little about the quality, or alphaness, of the men who willingly take up the shackles.

4. There is no evidence I’m aware of that married men have more frequent sex with their indentured sperm receptacles aka wives than unmarried men *in relationships* have with their girlfriends. That’s the key distinction. My bet, if such data could be extracted, is that unmarried men with girlfriends, and particularly those who cohabit, have more sex than married men. I throw the challenge out to the GSS nerds to unleash the data.

5. Finally, why do pro-marriage anti-gamers always assume that maximizing sex frequency is the desired goal for men? Quality matters. One hundred sex sessions with a seacow will be less satisfying for most men than one session with a knockout. Go ahead, ask any man about his fondest sex memories. That one night with the bombshell will immediately leap to the front of his mind, crowding out the three years of sex with his dumpy wife. Not to mention, many men will gladly trade lots of one pussy for less of many pussies. Variety is the spice of life.

But wait, stop the presses! Look what we have here. Yet ANOTHER study confirming the Heartiste worldview.

A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period. […]

Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time.

This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time. […]

The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

“We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth” said Musick.

I think we can at last put to rest the myth that marriage is some kind of uniquely beneficial arrangement for men.* As this blog has been saying for years, you can get all the benefits of marriage in a loving long-term, unmarried relationship, including cohabitation, without the unbelievably shitty risks.** And now science proves it. Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.

*Note: Claiming that a particular romantic arrangement is good for individual men is not the same as claiming it is good for society. While cohabitation offers many advantages to single men, it is probably better for a heterogeneous collective and its mutant posterity that society organize itself around the institution of marriage and the two-parent family. That means making marriage more enticing, not less, for the typical shoe-gazing beta stuck in diversityland.

**As more men come to understand the tangible and intangible benefits that cohabitation offers, and embrace the lifestyle, expect to see hordes of feminists and pilgrim johns try to regulate it so that it begins to resemble in burden the same crumbling wreck of marriage that men are abandoning in droves. There’s no way those interests are gonna let a cash cow in the form of transfer payments from men to women just disintegrate overnight. And make no mistake, or be deluded by the sloppy romanticism with which beta males imbue the institution: marriage is a sacrifice for men, and a gain for women. There are no two ways about it. Men have to surrender fealty to their primary directive to spread their seed in exchange for second-rate benefits that can be had just as easily within unmarried LTRs, while women get sustained material and emotional provisioning that more closely aligns with their innate monogamous proclivity. All the sacrifice from legalized commitment, in other words, is born by the man. Cohabitation is an escape clause that no feminist or tradcon, if they give it some thought, can allow to persist unimpeded.

Like this:

Related

273 Responses

I actually both agree and disagree. Personally, being religious, I’d have to get married since extra-marital fornication would doom me to hellfire, but God would hold atheists to different, less rigorous standards. Cohabitation for the irreligious would appear in some ways to be less messy than a formal marriage. Going over your points (I’ll ignore #3 and #4, since they’re irrelevant or rather abstruse):

#1 (health benefits for married men): I’d tend to agree, especially for the irreligious.
#2 (cohabiting people are thinner): Not necessarily. Cohabiting people tend to be younger, and therefore thinner and in better shape. We should take age into account when comparing cohabiting couples and marrieds. We shouldn’t ignore sex, either; weight is irrelevant for men but very important for women.
#5 (maximizing sex frequency): Of course quality matters. In addition to the self-esteem thing, seacows tend to have more STDs than attractive women. On the other hand, if you’re 50, you’re not likely to get much sex unless you have 1) a LOT of game, or 2) you’re married.

One last point: “Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.” Agreed, this is a stupid attitude to have. If anything, it’s the WOMAN’S job to lock a MAN into marriage.

‘One last point: “Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.” Agreed, this is a stupid attitude to have. If anything, it’s the WOMAN’S job to lock a MAN into marriage.’

i can see the guy’s attitude if he wants a ltr and kids. if he doesn’t offer to marry, she’ll just leave. putting myself in that situation…say pregnant and the dad refused to marry me. well, i’d see that as the prompt to get an abortion and gtfo.

If you were in that situation, and guy did want to raise the kid with you but insisted on a prenup so as not to be at risk for alimony, would you agree?

The prenup would 1) waive all alimony under all circumstances (but not child support=also stealth alimony); 2) divide property as one does when splitting up after living together, according to who had title, who has possession of the account be it a retirement, securities, or bank account, etc., who was signatory to the debt, who has possession, or who earned the money to buy it, unless it was clearly a gift except 3) for the principal residence which if acquired during the marriage would be held in joint title along with the mortgage and hence the equity in it would be split equally in the event of a divorce.

I would not want nor expect a wife to remain a stay at home mother after the children are in preschool, at any rate.

Agreed with Gramps. It does grave harm to the inner game of even a young man to assume that getting old will get him less sex when, when the time comes, a little money spread here and there can solve that problem and with the exact same hot women that younger PUAs will be gaming (not professional whores). Also Corvius was gravely wrong in assuming that being married can guarantee sex for a man over 50 when the odds are that his wife will no longer be sexually attractive to him within a short period of time, which is what young men experience as their LTRs approach 30.

corvinus wrote: “Personally, being religious, I’d have to get married since extra-marital fornication would doom me to hellfire….”

Relax, my brother in Christ.

Indeed, we are striving to “be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect.” Can a man accomplish that by following a handful of crude marital rules, interpreted by our unaided minds, refashioned by the secular-feminist enemies of Christ, and achieved through your own strength? No. “God became man so that man might become a god.” (St. Athanasius, De incarnatione)

Salvation is about the quality of our striving, about the general trajectory of our efforts. It matters to one’s disposition whether one is negatively or positively motivated: errors become easy damnations rather than the instruments of improvement; lapses become vehicles of despair which trigger wild swings into prodigal hedonism (and back again) rather than steps along a meandering and occasionally regressive journey to end-state excellence through persistence, perspective, and self-forgiveness.

Most importantly, we are at war, son. Act like it! If we had been born in a weak piping time of peace your perfectionism would be an option to contemplate. Thou shalt not murder, ever, but in war it is necessary to kill. Likewise with fucking. Sex can deliver a woman back to her truest self, or sex can brutalize her soul worse than death (ask the bipolar girls you know whence their suicidal self-hatred derived). The force of so primal a drive, like the threat of death to our survival instinct, has the power to alter behavior permanently. This is not a power we brandish lightly, and we are suspicious of the snares of lust at every turn. But duty entails the dispassionate performance of certain extreme measures that a culture at peace does not need to contemplate.

If your “conscience [is] wide as hell, mowing like grass / … fresh-fair virgins” for your own satisfactions, and not in the context of the greater struggle, then yes, be prepared for the unquenchable fire. A culture where marriage is possible and sustained by custom has pleasures we do not have access to. That is not our world. We were born into the fight, we are babes of battle, baptized by flame. To treat gently the agents of evil (unwitting though they may be) is no favor to the women in our lives. We rightly despise the evil that women do, but not the women themselves. We love our enemy! That is why we must finally engage this this hundred year war, we must reply at long last to their passive-aggression.

Women who insist on extracting every benefit of outmoded marriage while contriving new protections exclusive to their sex are the destroyers of that institution, and beyond that institution is the state of nature. Only a taste of the state of nature will reacquaint the perpetrators with the brutality they have invited back inside the walls, lest they continue to elude all incentive to cooperate in rebuilding that which they so insouciantly have destroyed. We fight not for their surrender but for their unconditional surrender.

War is not a justification for freewheeling brutality or some of the more outre suggestions of excitable PUAs trying to top each others’ “field reports.” But it is folly to think war can be conducted with a minimum of savagery. Recall your William Tecumseh Sherman, the conqueror-inventor and first practitioner of total warfare:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. … You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war.

We must tap into some dangerous vestigial savageries in this state of emergency. Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary virtues. We must find our place among the sublimated brutality of modern life, along the warpath where institutionalized cruelties are no longer recognized as the injustices they are because generations were born into regarding the most heinous deviancies, inversions, and perversions as naturally occurring.

You must get in combat shape and acquire a personal war-footing. You do a woman no favors by treating her impossibly, by denying her nature or your nature. You do nothing but prolong the pain of the greater intersexual battle-royale by taking half measures. You do nothing to end the conflict by denying the irreconcilability of our present conditions or the full scope of our casus belli.

In this way, the effete postmodern interpretation of venerable church teachings has extended the war to new generations who deserve these conditions no more than we did. But we who were born so close to the turning point of the struggle have the possibility of delivering war’s end and sparing the world countless silent cruelties, because we are the first grown men to survive the deeply destructive nature of feminism per se with our balls intact. We have the wisdom to effect peace through strength, manly strength. With these capacities we have incurred an obligation.

You will go before the Judge of your life alone, unable to hide your transgressions. You will be asked which is the greater sin: The incidental physical component of forcing the sexual cosmos back into alignment, one righteous alpha pounding at a time, holy justice delivered via cervical battering ram? Or, the pacifist’s complacency devolved into monkish abstinence born of fear rather than purpose, justified by a quixotic attempt at perfection, while the sacrifices of war were called for and your brothers’ souls slain?

We are in a state of war with the opposite sex who has rebelled for a century and usurped our role, a role that holds civilization together and the state of nature at bay. This is not a mere metaphor; the fact of conflict is the overriding condition of your life, transcending all personal considerations. In war you submit to the reality of c’est la guerre. Men of vision and leadership, like your web host Heartiste, must be persuaded to formally join the cause and organize men to fight.

For the war to be merciful and short it must be declared and our purposes made plain. This has not occurred yet. So far we are groping blindly and giving guttural voice to gut instinct. We are living under the vagaries of an informally recognized but comprehensive civil conflict with our sisters. The violence is just as real as armies clashing on the battlefield but it is a very feminine violence, a war of words, wiles, propaganda, and psyops. At such a disadvantage it’s not surprising that men have capitulated for a century so thoroughly that defeat has been encoded into our very manliness through the cultural expectations, since internalized, that “good men” must be slavering betas.

We are at war with our sisters, and up until the phenomenon of modern pick-up artistry and game, we have been at war with ourselves. It is crucial that we take the practical wisdom learned here — this hard-earned liberation granted by “the world’s largest trial and error experiment ever performed” — and transform it into an organized force ready for battle.

In the meantime, our spirituality must gird itself against the chaos. “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Pretending at nominal holiness is useless for God’s purposes in a godless environment that has ecstatically submitted itself (and you, willy-nilly) to the influences of demoniac feminist witchery.

Marriage is what we or our sons and grandsons will eventually get back to. It helps no one to pretend the shambles of the institution as presently constituted is operative or effective or anything but the rubble over which modern beta males are ritually curb-stomped. It is no surprise that individual men, like those drawn to this site, find it more convenient to rebel independently (“go their own way”) and scavenge what they might from the chaos.

It is not easy to convince self-made guerrillas that there is a world better than the chaos, or that the chaos can be vanquished and wiped clean, and order restored. They see the rules of marriage as the instruments of their oppression rather than the tools of liberation, like former prisoners so seethingly resentful of their chains that they have come to hate the very steel that kept them in bondage, even the steel that might be fashioned into weapons of their deliverance. Marriage is that steel, the proverbial blade that can cut its wielder or hack its enemy.

A man whose eyes were recently opened to the fact of his marital servility is not disposed to hearing the truth that eventually civilization must return to marriage. They would rather fight to torture their enslavers as payback, or at very least reject the possibility of returning to enslavement from their lives. Their unfocused rage is energy wasted on an impossible cause: marriage is naturally occurring and constituent of every civilized society, it is the source of rightly ordered progeneration and manly authority, and it will re-evolve in one form or another.

A life in perpetual war with the very ones we are sleeping with can be discouraging at a deep psychological level, which is why we have sued for a false peace with our sisters for decades. Even men who naturally glory in direct combat are disgusted into inactivity by the connivances of the passive sex. We close our eyes to our duty and wish away the fight.

“I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.”

“So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world … besides the will of evil. [He] was meant to find the ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.”

But we were not made for war alone. We were also made to drink deep from the cup of life. Keep that in mind when selecting scripture to guide you through the present unpleasantness. We are soldiers of a crusade, our lives are exemplars of the return to manhood, we are not ledger-keepers and Pharisaical legalists. We fight and we fuck, we rape, pillage, plunder and scorch the earth so that, after Sherman’s example, they and their daughters’ daughters are discouraged in their DNA from ever taking up arms again. “I can make this march, and I will make Georgia howl.”

Paraphrasing the Butcher of Atlanta, our model:

You [feminists] don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! … You mistake, too, the [opposite sex]. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this [culture] be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… You [engaged in] war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right [in your beds]. You are bound to fail. … In [martial matters you] are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail … your cause will begin to wane. If [women] will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

All I can say is, every circumstance has its own requirements. I am not sure what specifics you encounter, but I do know that problems at the trench level can’t be solved by reference to the ambiguities of general rules or outmoded rules of engagement, whether they come down from the church or from feminist platitude. God gave you the virtues of prudence and right judgment, not an instruction manual of binary flow charts. Keep your conscience in fighting trim, in the hard shape of a soldier. And work out your faith in fear and trembling.

Last, do this duty not with a grimace but with the joy given you by the Lord. Valhalla, not “hellfire” awaits the avenging angels of the God of Justice, and the supplications of young women delivered back to their nature by your warrior spirit are a premonition of paradise. Their breath on your neck, their tearful gratitude, the frisson of their righteous pleasure: these are the abundant gifts of God. We are meant to sacrifice, yes! But not the false goddesses of feminism. There is no honor in the betatude of modern marriage, only the perpetuation of a crime against man and God.

“I came that [you] may have life, and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10)

i momentarily visualized you a wealthy early retiree with the leisure to dash off these missives prior to boarding the ss minnow for a 3 hour tour. you as the professor with your bff thurston howell III. w/o the disastrous conclusion of course.

then right after as an inmate in a posh mental institution surfacing here during your lucid periods.

(enough, carolyn, enough)

your declaration of war requires the approval of congress, of course. just what do you have in mind? you should let your prospective enlistees know. to me it sounds like you wish to roll history back way before the sexual revolution, before the advent of universal suffrage, even before susan b. anthony’s and eizabeth cady stanton’s seneca falls conference.

many of us here tend to be culturally conservative, but are not reactionary. how far do you wish to go?

It was not easy to endure this breathless paean to the supposed glories of white knighting, but at least there was a touch of comedy:

“Their breath on your neck, their tearful gratitude, the frisson of their righteous pleasure…”

KA, “the frisson of their righteous pleasure” is a hilariously grotesque piece of bombast, even for you, and that’s saying something.

There is a double air of fraudulence and flatulence wafting through this orgy of hortatory platitudes, and it does you no favors. When the rhetoric becomes this exaggerated, the preacher becomes a laughingstock, and the message, such as it is, curdles into just another pimped ideology.

In short, your text reads like a communique from the Ministry of Propaganda — *any* such ministry.

True, but allowing a woman key access to your home, when you don’t have an alternative home to take other women to, will mostly imprison the man and kill off the rest of the harem. And that’s not even taking into account the new laws making lengthy cohabitation equal to marriage in the eyes of the law.

Even when she doesn’t have the key, if you don’t train her to always get your agreement before coming over, she can arrive unexpectedly and see the lights on and shadows in the kitchen of you and another woman and try to bang the door down. You can get the other woman out a back entrance quickly but then you have to erase the evidence, such as dirty wine glasses, really fast. Meanwhile, the main girl would have left nightgowns hanging and other “scarecrows” in the apartment that the man has to know how to quickly hide for guests and then quickly reinstate when his “cohabitor” returns.

Don’t get me started on the skill it takes to quickly find and delete strands of hair that might break off one woman anywhere. Betas don’t need this skill.

Tell all your women not to wear perfume. I believe they wear that to mark their territory.

This is all doable. Choose an upper floor apartment with these concepts in mind. Having a ground floor, one level, house would not be a good idea for all this because a woman arriving at a stand-alone house would surely know it’s occupied and can manage to look through the windows.

You can cohabit with someone 4 nights a week leaving room for her to stay at her place on those nights you have to work late at the office.

Plus, if you’re cohabiting she has no right to half your retirement accounts, investments, or the apartment if you own it. Unless you put stuff in joint accounts (which you shouldn’t) she only has a right to her stuff, not to half of what you both make combined during the relationship, divided in half.

If Kobe Bryant had been living together but not married to his wife, he’d only owe her child support.

If you make significant money it’s a huge difference. If you and she make about the same money, it makes not much difference.

If you’re any kind of alpha, she can be readily replaced. And you can have fun while looking for a replacement.

If you’re any kind of alpha, she’ll know all this in her gut.

If you really want to keep her don’t tell her you’ll never marry her. Tell her you don’t believe in marriage until and unless you both want to have kids immediatement, and that you’re not ready for that. Tell her how unfair you think divorce laws and courts are to men and that you don’t want to take any risk of that unless you have to.

Tell her you’ve heard from many of your friends and read a lot on the net, that marriage tends to lead to diminished interest in sex on the part of women in a lot of cases, not all, but very commonly.

Now you just have to find a woman who will let you string her along for years and years, knowing full well that she can be replaced at any moment and not be financially compensated in any way. Complicating matters is the fact that women have been programmed to dream of their wedding day since the age of seven. And what about palimony? Lee Marvin was trying to live the Chateau Heartiste “don’t buy the cow” lifestyle but still got creamed in court. What’s the point or advantage of cohabiting if you’re technically “married” in the eyes of the state?

I agree women are programmed, and it may be more than just social programming. I believe women are hard coded to try to use their pussy as a bear trap. The feeling is that if you fuck it, you’ve bought it, and that they want to own you for life. Life meaning a time limit at their personal discretion.

This is no mere social convention, and no man is excused from these female pressures. At some point the woman will try to make thing exclusive, and you can put off commitment for a while, but it goes against the womans best interest, and this best interest is a wisdom that is hard coded into the fabric of her being.

The comment on the regulation of cohabitation is quite frightening. In the UK, the zeitgeist is that more weight should be given to “common-law marriage” – turning cohabitation into de facto marriage. So you can be married without getting married. Terrifying.

Or if gay marriage passes in your state, just marry one of your male best friends. Male friends are much more loyal to one another then female friends are to men, and provided the two of you are both committed to a no-marriage lifestyle, you will completely immunise yourself from any harm from marriage laws. Gives new meaning to bros before hoes.

QUOTE: Requirements for Common Law Marriage
First, you must have “agreed to be married.”
Second, you must have “held yourselves out” as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as “my husband,” or you may have filed a joint income tax return.
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.

Above poster is right. Requirements vary from state to state, her facebook status could be enough. Example:

South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.

Some states also have wrinkles in the law where if she represents to other people that you’re married and you don’t rebut it immediately, that’s evidence of your intent. For the non-lawyers posting out of their butts, you also have to factor in the fact that she as a witness can very easily just start making stuff up. “He told me he wanted to get married! He told my friends we were married!”

That’s what’s actually the case in Canada. After two or three years of cohabitation depending on the province, you’re consider effectively married should you later split up. In the 10 American states that create common law marriage not only some extended period of cohabitation is necessary, but also you and your partner have to “hold yourselves out as married”, that is tell all and sundry that you’re married.

As many sociologists have pointed out: those marriage benefits studies are completely bogus, because they count divorced men as “single”.

Any such study invariably paints the same picture: single AND married men are doing fine, but divorced men are slaughtered on every imagiable metric (health, life expectancy, stress, depression, suicide etc…)

Lumping divorced guys in the “single” category, invariably brings the single average down. The agenda being, of course, to convince single guys to get married, by using the poor outcomes of the divorced🙂 Ha! You have to appreciate the irony!

As noted above, you can’t become common-law married unintentionally. Common-law marriage requires that you and your partner publicly say that you are married. The majority of American jurisdictions don’t recognize it anyway.

Only ten states CREATE common low marriages, but once created in a state that does so, it will be recognized by all other states. So shack up for three years in Alabama or Rhode Island, tell friends and family you’re married, move to Connecticut and live together another two years, she files for divorce, you’re still screwed.

I realize you’re making a rhetorical point, and I even appreciate a little condescension because it points a lot of your readers my way, but I’m certainly aware of your concerns re: the GSS. Here’s the brief postpreceding the one you linked to, in response to the assertion that marriage means, as you so eloquently phrase it, “crossed arms and clamped pussies”:

In aggregate, of course, married men get more sex than unmarried men do. But that’s because the latter category is dragged down by men who are unattractive or uninterested in women.

What about those guys who are able to successfully play the field? In addition to variety, do they also enjoy greater frequency? Among those aged 22-36, sexual frequency for married men (4.15) is marginally higher than it is for unmarried men who have racked up double-digit counts (4.10).

Getting married will tend to net you about the same amount of snatch time as a go getter gets. The treasure chest won’t be clamped shut, though your prize won’t glitter as much.

I don’t have a dog in the fight, I just like rummaging through the data. But if, instead of writing primarily for and to the benefit of silver-tongued alphas as you do, we think of the above as being relevant to a broader and presumably majority-beta audience, the point that marriage (or long-term commitment, if you prefer–marriage just happens to be the only reliably way to track it in broad-based social surveys of which the GSS is the best of the best) does generally offer men who aren’t adept at playing the field a tolerable sexual lifestyle is at least worth considering.

Your filter, and your subsequent reactions to the things that come in through it, aren’t universally productive upon reception, even if they are perfectly valid for your target audience. By way of analogy, you’re like the entrepreneur who offers tips for the self-employed to make them more successful in their ventures while simultaneously belittling the poor suckers who go work for someone else. But a lot of those corporate cogs don’t have what it takes to run their own businesses and, despite your best advice, are staring down economic ruin if they go the route you prescribe. Many of them will be better off working for someone else. As someone who is grounded in the realities of HBD, it’s difficult to conceive of it being otherwise.

I completely agree and feel that most men who have no desire to chase booty for most of their lives and prefer a more stable and consistent ready and available route to sex, they prefer marriage – especially if kids are in the future.

The truth is not every man wants to “hunt” and constantly be on the prowl for new vagina. Especially the more Beta type men who would have to completely overhaul who they are and completely change things up to get laid consistently by random women. Game is good for those guys who are already halfway there and are naturally not made for committed relationships, kids or marriage. but a lot of men are not even close and they simply don’t want to do all that has to be done to game woman after woman just to get laid. its too much work and energy for the Beta guy that just prefers a more stable and consistent form of sex through marriage.

Women do also need to clean their acts up in the marriage arena as well, and stop taking advantage of the system. They need to also be aware that its not fair to stop taking care of herself and that its also not fair to stop being sexually available to your husband. many are finding that the laws and easy out routes to divorce many women use for stupid reasons are making mararige more and more unappealing to even the men who desire it but fear the risks of getting hitched with some fickle woman who will divorce him and break up his family (children) over something stupid or who stops becomming sexually available to him once the kids are born.

Excellent post, especially the last portion. I do believe the femcunts will try everything in their power to make unmarried, co-habitation legally binding. Sadly, this will only wind up hurting women again in the long run. The more power women try to usurp from men, the less they will get from men and the unhappier they will be.

interesting that marriage is dying out among younger n. europeans and the sky’s not falling, as many here would assume. that said, n. european enjoy more social cohesion and have more civic virtue. their pensions and health care are socialized and don’t depend on marital status.

come to think of it, there’s also an f. u. attitude to the established church that’s part of the refusal to marry. at least this is what my flemish relatives report.

it doesn’t seem to be detrimental to society as a whole, but these are europeans we’re taking about, who are less individualistic and more conscientious than americans. they _behave_ as if they’re formally married.

i’d have to agree with your contention that holding on to the institution is important here. all hell would break loose if living together became mainstream. we’d have to become a ‘social democracy’ like these euro countries to make it work and that’s probably not what the majority here want. too many free-riders gumming up the works.

and what about the children from such unions? the law would be involved with or w/o marriage, it would just be a lot messier.

I wonder if that has anything to do with northern europe being relatively homogenous compared to America and still comprised of… northern europeans. Amazing that you would leave that out. Is it cognitive dissonance or just ignorance?

Don’t worry, they’re feverishly working on destroying their countries like America.

‘I wonder if that has anything to do with northern europe being relatively homogenous compared to America and still comprised of… northern europeans.’

i think that was implicit in my comment. it has everything to do with flanders being full of flemings, denmark being full of danes etc.

‘Don’t worry, they’re feverishly working on destroying their countries like America’

yes, dammit. their elites were as seduced by the prospect of cheap and docile labor as ours. and their countries are in the long run set to be even more ruined than the usa. here at least some diversity is expected, there a homogenous people are being diluted. their sense of social cohesiveness is living on borrowed time. my flemish working class relatives complain about the moroccan and turkish immigrants getting benefits by having a lot of kids. if it were up to the electorate, immigration would be stopped cold. thus the rise of the vlaamse belang, a right wing group. more power to them.

indeed. maybe the best solution would be to halt immigration. a bonus perhaps to limit ‘kindergeld’ (stipend for children) to nationals, but that’s probably asking too much. yeah, just stop further immigration and insist that immigrants marry other european born co-ethnics rather than import fobs from the motherland. that would be a start. a policy to bribe them to repatriate would be a dream…

a less than replacement birthrate or no, the japanese have the right idea.

What about men and women who want children? How many women of any decent quality are going to go for being “baby mommas” and having a bunch of out of wedlock kids for a man that isn’t her husband?

I think what you are suggesting is fine for men and women who don’t want children or older couples. but for men who want kids, they will find it very difficult to find a woman in her reproductive years who also wants kids but will not expect or want marriage.

“… but for men who want kids, they will find it very difficult to find a woman in her reproductive years who also wants kids but will not expect or want marriage.”

I think for all men, not only for men who want kids. All women expect marriage, especially older, I think. So here we have another reason to date very young girls – they won’t nag you with marriage or kids.

I disagree. Actually women in reproductive years want marriage more and it makes sense why – they are in the prime of their repro years. many women past the prime age of marriage and reproduction do or may want marriage but its not as much a requirement at that point in thier lives b/c they may be past the reproductive window.

otoh, it could be we could use a little intellectual stimulation. i’m sure you yourself might conceivably post here for the same reason. a short break from work, too. true disclosure–there are times i get tired of cleaning up after other people (i’m a housewife) and come here for some relief.

yeah, that’s probably the more likely reason.

‘Get thin, dress and act feminine’

is that it? no wonder so many men think women are boring. women who have been obeying that directive have tainted the reputations of the rest of us.

Actually, like most blogs, this one is seriously unrepresentative
of the population in general. This is not exactly Heartiste’s
fault, and for that matter it is one of the charms of blogs.
But don’t get fooled into thinking it is representative.

To wit, there are men who value women they can
actually have a conversation with (and vice versa).

For one man I know, chatting about Molière with his not quite
yet gf was the catalyst, and they got married.

For me, it was reciting alternate verses of Jabberwocky with
a girl. And we married and staid married until she died after 30 years.

And both men above are engineers, not Eng Lit people.

Which does not change the fact that looks matter too.
My wife was gorgeous, my friend – well they are both
fairly spherical people.

Now, the above pertains mainly to LTRs and marriages.
For short term flings the objective function tends to swing
to where looks become paramount, at least women’s looks.

carolyn, in general I would argue that men come here for mental stimulation and most women are here to play. You may be the exception, though I would recommend stepping back and reading the posts of other females. You may change your judgement.

Also, two things. Firstly, looks and charm (the best way to describe the female character) are not mutually exclusive. No matter what the media tells us, a great many gorgeous women have great characters. Beautiful of body, beautiful of mind is, more often than not, true of males and females.

Secondly, that is not it. Do a google search for The Satanic Witch. It is an absolutely astounding how-to guide for women on how to choose the right lover, presenting yourself as well as you can for your lover and what you can do to keep your man interested for life. It gives a woman a great deal that she can do to improve herself mentally (and physically) in the pursuit of a man. Its down to earth advice will help women just as well as this website assists men and makes ‘The Rules’ entirely redundant.

Do not be put off that LaVey is a jew and it has a ‘satanist’ tag. You, as a woman, will get wisdom that will change your life.

an anecdote–in my f-i-l’s native tourist-economy new england town, the town alpha big shot teamed up non-maritally with an ex-playboy bunny fathering and ‘co-parenting’ 2 boys (good-looking ivy-league winners themselves) by her, the boys’ surname an amalgam of theirs. they split up amicably when she aged out of hotness and he’s never been seen since w/o a young pretty woman at his side. the ex is not so badly off, heading up the lucrative real estate business she’s always run. and she does have her kids. such is life in the fast lane.

sucks for average people though, i.e. most of us. in other posts heartiste rails against single moms, wanting them cut off from any assistance. i can’t see how advocating for effectively generating more single motherhood helps. but then he’s thinking from a man’s, more specifically an alpha’s point of view, which often means socializing negative externalities.

in other posts heartiste rails against single moms, wanting them cut off from any assistance. i can’t see how advocating for effectively generating more single motherhood helps. but then he’s thinking from a man’s, more specifically an alpha’s point of view, which often means socializing negative externalities.

Agreed. Co habitation increases the liklihood of single motherhood and if the man decides he is done, he can easily leave and what do you think the woman with the kid and no support will do? Seek out gov’t (and our taxes) for support.

Co habitating is great for couples not interested in children and older couples.

“Co habitation increases the liklihood of single motherhood and if the man decides he is done, he can easily leave and what do you think the woman with the kid and no support will do? Seek out gov’t (and our taxes) for support.” I don’t get it. So the fact that a couple cohabits means that the woman in the relationship can’t have gainful employment? If a woman wants to make sure she never ends up with “no support”, she needs to make sure she has the means to support herself (which typically is spelled j-o-b).

o Father is in the same ‘hood’ and visits and formally or informally
helps support the kids (quite common in some areas)

o Father and mother living together, not married.
Functionally, and for the kids, indistinguishable from marriage.
As to the long-term viability of the relationship – hard to tell,
and stats would as usual conflate cause and effect etc.
While it is in the obvious sense easier for either party to bolt,
reality just might be different. For example, the female
bolt-keep.kids-keep.house-bleed.exhubby becomes more difficult; even
child support has an end at around 18.

true, thor. and heartiste’s most despised scenario is that of a single mom getting welfare.

a cohabiting couple w. kids is the stabler setup, but not so stable as having that piece of paper. note too that power is shifted to the dad. he can up and leave anytime and could reduce her to welfare dependency if he’s clever enough.

my guess is that it’s not welfare dependency per se that he finds so objectionable. only when it’s the woman’s idea.

It depends on the details. If no kids, no problem, Both parties
places their bets and takes their chances.

With kids, you say the man can easily bail out. Not so. Two BIG
reasons
A) Most men love their kids (in a slightly different way than women do,
maybe, but just as much. Particularly when they are old enough to
have a personality. Full disclosure – I love my granddaughter age 6
and she is a mega shit-tester).

B) Child support is no joke. Fifty years ago it was fairly easy to dodge.
Not anymore. Possible, maybe, but the dodges are costly too,
and not just in money. If a US citizen, you cannot get a passport,
for starters (unless you have another citizenship or two….)

On the other hand, with two parents in an LTR, it is a lot
HARDER for the woman to bail than if they were married.
No alimony, and child support however jacked up has the
grace to have an end. So, I am not sure that longtime
LTRs are less stable. And stats are as usual useless,
since we won’t know what is cause and what is effect.

I did say women of quality. MOST women who have kids out of wedlock shouldn’t be having kids. And yes that includes many Black women.but then again i am extremely anti single motherhood (without ever having been married) b/c I see the toll ot takes on children who are born in these kinds of senarios. Its selfish and any woman that is not smart enough to secure a stable family unit and environment for her offspring should not have children b/c she is not thinking about her children’s well being first. That’s just my opinion.

This may be so, but I personally have benefitted from understanding why. In some ways, it is like a White suburbanite visiting a Black militant blog. The White guy should want to know why Black people who aren’t overly attached to the multikult hate and/or mistrust him.

It can be difficult to filter the useful from the useless information if one is, like the suburbanite whose family lived one paycheck from homelessness, not really getting much good out of feminism, because you don’t feel the unfair advantage. It is there though, and it is a good reason for men to walk in awareness.

Black women in particular, benefit the least from feminism, yet we are generally its most ardent promoters. So it makes perfect sense to me that some would hate us more. We appear to be more stupid and/or hostile.

You have to stop being so butthurt about the generalities. So you’re not totally screwed up…good for you, but you have to admit that a good proportion of us are stupid, and worse stupid despite the natural ability to afford to be so stupid.

I feel absolutely no attachment to sellout “sisters” who think the White women are going to save them from the facts of real life on the planet Earth like needing men to survive. I don’t defend them. I don’t feel bad because people talk trash about them. I hope I wouldn’t be judged on sight as the same kind of stupid, but if I am, I understand because somewhere out there is a Black woman wearing clothes two sizes too small, with ashy elbows talking about how the media portrayal of Black women is why she can’t get any respect from men.

I don’t get mad at the men who aren’t into spandex encased sausage. I want to send that girl a proper dress and a bottle of lotion.

This may be so, but I personally have benefitted from understanding why. In some ways, it is like a White suburbanite visiting a Black militant blog. The White guy should want to know why Black people who aren’t overly attached to the multikult hate and/or mistrust him.

Yeah, this is pretty much the perfect example.

Even though I disagree with the majority of the mindset and opinions on this blog, there are times where I’ve read stuff that’s insightful and eye-opening, that could help me in the future. The “why” makes sense, I just don’t agree with some of the ways and methods to dealing with it (“some” being the key word here).

“How many women of any decent quality are going to go for being “baby mommas” and having a bunch of out of wedlock kids for a man that isn’t her husband?”

Don’t be naive, Neecy; quite a number of women would be willing to do this (note I didn’t say “happy” but willing). And yes, these women would swear that they were at least “decent”. They aren’t, of course.

An obvious omission to C.H.’s otherwise pretty good defense of his position is children, and there is overwhelming evidence that children do much better with married parents than any other kind of arrangement.

Doesn’t matter what these women think about themselves. If a man wants kids and he has any kind of brain matter and concern for their well being, he will look for a woman of quality to have his children and not some low life who will lay up and pop out his babies without having been married first.

I am not saying every woman that has an out of wedlock kid is a low life. I understand things happen. But frankly it happens waaay too much these days and usually it is with lower caliber women who do this. Not all the time but MOST of the time. And it saddens me to say that a lot of women in my own race champion this behavior.

People need to start thinking more about the future of their children and how they will fare in co habitating environments.

Men and women have a different idea of “quality”. Because men think and speak in more empirical terms, it is easy for a woman, especially one with confidence issues, to take what they’re saying in extreme terms.

Yes, men prefer younger, hotter, tighter, but most, even the very alpha, are capable of loving a woman who is not so close to the raw ideal. So no man in his right mind goes into a *relationship* thinking he’s going to dump her as soon as she hits the wall.

Also, what you may think of as “lower caliber” could be the bee’s knees for a guy who simply requires that the woman adore and be loyal to him. Some women you may look down on as sluts who give themselves too easily are just not into the games.

Male love is a wonderful, mysterious, and confusing thing for us ladies because it doesn’t seem to make any practical sense. One just has to remember that they don’t want the same things from us that we want from them.

How many women of any decent quality are going to go for being “baby mommas” and having a bunch of out of wedlock kids for a man that isn’t her husband?

You have to be kidding! Most women want unprotected sex. It’s only a man’s morals, fear of child support and decision that he doesn’t want his kids to have her genes that keeps a man of any age from getting numerous single women pregnant.

Feminists consider abortion the defense against that, when they really should be promoting condoms more.

Marriage is meant to protect women from being pumped and dumped. Not saying that it’s right or wrong, but cohabitation is not as beneficial (secure) to women as marriage is…..so at some point the cohabiting girlfriend will nag you to take the next step.

Agree. The strike-through came across as a deep philosophical statement about the eradication of the classically educated white Western male. The horizontal punctuation symbolized his grammatical impalement. Killed by the very same language he created. I was impressed. I thought it was a clever device.

‘BTW, common law marriage was conceived to eliminate bastardy for those poor souls who couldn’t stump up the Church’s services — yet had families none the less.’

exactly. i’m old enough to remember the jokes in playboy magazine portraying common law marriage as an exercise in licentiousness, the punchline of a dirty joke. the sober and utterly practical reality was to assign the responsibities of fatherhood to the rightful man, thus sparing the town the cost of upkeep.

It is so terrifying, discouraging, and fucked up hearing about these co-habitation rulings where even unmarried men are robbed from their belongings. As soon as I develop and significant savings & investments, its going overseas to the Cayman Islands, they are pretty much bulletproof in protecting your money unless you are a terrorist. They laugh at divorce lawyers and divorce court judges and private investigators. How do you protect your house though? That is the question. If you want to truly never fucked over, do you need to rent?

Why the hell would any sane, virile, interesting man want to LIVE with a goddamn female anyway?

Don’t live with them, don’t let them move in and then you’ll never have to worry about “palimony”.

I’d understand wanting to have a female around if she were literally your slave like in ancient Greece or Rome. Cooking, cleaning, de-spooging and keeping quiet at all times. Sure. I could have a hundred of those around. But the modern liberated female? Are you fucking kidding me?

Very well said. Why do so many dudes have such a hard-on to co-habitate with women? Is it really that great to have to listen to the pointless dribble that most women constantly spew? Honestly guys, what do women REALLY have to offer you other than their sexuality? Are they that fascinating that you’d want to live with them 24/7?

I find cohabitation unacceptable. I believe that men like it but for women it is a very bad idea to waste your time with someone who has an intent (possibly subconscious) to leave you when you approach the wall. (And then find another, younger and therefore hotter “sperm receptacle”).

I find it even more unacceptable when there are children involved. Marriage was invented to protect the children, I believe. And I’m surprised that you don’t know it. We want to get married because we want to have children. And it’s just safer to have babies when someone decides that he wants to stay with you forever. When you have babies everything changes. You probably start to prefer safety over constant stress.

“Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.”

Sorry, but you are also viewing women through a lens of fear. You are afraid that your girlfriend will get fat etc. if you marry her.

“marriage is a sacrifice for men, and a gain for women. Men have to surrender fealty to their primary directive to spread their seed in exchange for second-rate benefits that can be had just as easily within unmarried LTRs …”

Again, marriage is here to protect children. I don’t know how you imagine to have a family. Seriously … Your girlfriend will care for the children while you will be spending your time and money “spreading your seeds”? I’m sure it’s unacceptable for you to make any sacrifices …
You should have fun while you can. And then you’ll die alone.

“I believe that men like it for women it is a very bad idea to waste your time with someone who has an intent (possibly subconscious) to leave you when you approach the wall.”

In other words, it’s a very bad idea to waste your time with any male except a beta chump? Every alpha on earth will drop you like a hot potato when you approach said wall unless you have some incredible redeeming qualities. The solution? Don’t date alphas. Except that vagina tingles SO strongly for that jerk outlaw biker…what’s a girl to do?

“Marriage was invented to protect the children, I believe.”

Marriage was invented by Western society to transfer wealth from men to women and children. The children part may be ‘protection,’ but the women part certainly falls into the category of extortion. Your twat doesn’t come gold-plated, so why the fuck should I have to pay for that? A whore costs less and at least she’s up front about what she wants.

I completely agree Maya. Marraige protects women and children b/c men would leave the minute their wives started to hit the wall. There is no way any woman in her child bearing years who has any kind of integrity and self respect will co habitate with a man if her desires are to get married and have kids.

Granted not every woman wants to get married and have children, but more do than don’t.

While I believe the marriage laws should be looked at again to make it more appealing to men, men need to understand that marriage is something that MOST women want – espcially those who want children. And whether its right or wrong, it protects women and children b/c as someone said above, women and children would be constantly left behind the minute a man wants someone younger or hotter. With marriage, if a man wants to walk away from his family for superficial reasons (an aging wife and desire for someone younger) he will have to pay for it – that makes it less likely that a man will walk out on his wife and kids.

Most of all marriage as you said benefits children the most and provides a more stable foundation for them. Co-habitating makes it too easy for fickle or superficial people to just up and leave – and kids fare the worse in these situations.

funny how most women want marriage…..and yet it’s women who initiate most divorces.

most men would not divorce their wives when they hit the wall, especially if there are kids involved. men do not want to be forcibly separated from their offspring. the alpha whose wife hits the wall (but is otherwise a good wife and mother) can simply get poon on the side. but he won’t leave.

no, your assumption that men would leave the minute their wives hit the wall is you projecting female behavior onto men. it is women who have the hair trigger flight response.

Right. Because if the unmarried woman died a man would throw HIS children to the dogs. Marriage is needed to force the man to give the woman the resources ($$$) needed to protect the lives of the children. There can be no other scenario. Because without marriage men would eat their own children. Right?

Do you realize if you could bottle and sell your BS you would be a millionaire.

This is why Africa is a disease and filth-ridden cesspool. The Mohammedan world isn’t much better with their retrograde religion, where many of their best and brightest young men, who might possibly become nuclei of advancement, hold AK-47s rather than a woman.

Meanwhile, we in Western Civilization, with our traditional marriages [shudder], have been advancing and developing. How long this will continue with New Marriage — rake the man over the coals and steal his children via modern divorce laws — remains to be seen.

[heartiste: true. maya needs to go to a chamber of horrors — aka nursing home — and see what happens to old people who get left alone to die by their huge extended families.
hint: they ain’t gathered around holding their dear dad’s hand or stroking dear mom’s hair as they wheeze out their last.]

‘hint: they ain’t gathered around holding their dear dad’s hand or stroking dear mom’s hair as they wheeze out their last.’

bullshit. families with any sense of love or duty are in attendance near the moment of death if not precisely at it.

[heartiste: then there aren’t many families left with a sense of love or duty.]

my own poor dad had us visiting the hospital daily, talking to him even when he seemed unhearing. the nurse told us that sense was the last to go. so yeah, everyone dies alone. but my hope is that my dad’s last conscious thought was that he was dearly loved as his kids told him holding his hand.

[the point is that those who argue the unmarried will die alone and unloved tend to overlook the fact that the married also, by and large, die alone and unloved, if by “unloved” we mean no one was there on a semi-consistent basis reminding the old fart how much he or she is loved.]

a better death is hard to imagine. but yeah death sucks, i’ll grant you that.

Heartsie, i’ve been in nursing home and didn’t like it. many people are very lonely there. having a family doesn’t protect you from loneliness but if you have kids you have a reasonable chance that someone will give a shit about you in your last decades of life. your friends and family members will die, your fans will forget you (maybe you’ll get an occasional message from me or gbfm) and 17 year old girls won’t notice you anymore. if you have a family you also have a chance that they will actually be gathered around you when you will be dying (there are people who experience that).

No, marriage was invented to prevent either party from reproductively exploiting one another. It was made to stop men from abandoning women after those women had sexually invested in the man on the promise that the man commit to her, and it was made to stop women from cuckolding men after those women had pledged to be faithful to their man in exchange for his commitment.

That’s why in all cultures at all times the major concern of people regarding marriage has been paternal certainty and men abandoning women. It’s only in our modern environment that the idea of what marriage is for has been the benefit of children, and it is this conception of marriage which has allowed the passing of laws which result in the reproductive exploitation of men and their subsequent disincentivisation from the institution itself which coincidentally enough harms* children in the long-term.

*Assuming of course that one considers performing worse on most indicators of future socio-economic success to be harmful.

The reason that married men tend to have better outcomes than single men in many areas (health, longevity etc.) is simply because men who are more successful, intelligent, have better genes etc, are more likely to be married as they are seen as more suitable husbands by women. In other words, it is the factors that make men more marriageable, not being married itself, that largely account for these disparities.

Even if one accepts the idea that marriage generates significant benefits for men, that still needs to be weighed against the risks of divorce. If single men were already disadvantaged compared to married men, then by that reasoning men who are divorced and have been taken to the cleaners by our misandrist family law system would be doubly disadvantaged.

I am never surprised at the extent to which people clutch at just about any straw of evidence that appears to support their favored agenda.

This article is powerful, and should be printed in a Hallmark card for single men like myself to give their mothers and sisters when they start the patented “when are you going to settle down?” rant.

I work in the medical field in a communications capacity, and have been reviewing studies regarding the effect “therapy dogs” have on patients in both long and short term care medical treatment facilities. From lowering cholesterol, lessening the complications of asthma and reducing blood pressure to preventing depression, easing loneliness and cultivating “a sense of purpose and belonging,” the K9 effect on quality of life is well documented in the medical community.

Long story short, carefully managed and scientifically documented physical and psychological quality of life indicators increase dramatically for men and and young boys in the medical community at the same rates and in most of the same categories as trumpeted in the pro marriage community. In large, men benefit from companionship, and it doesn’t seem to matter much if the bitch next to them is named Leslie or Lassie.

I’ve long wondered if marriage was worth it and have spent many years contemplating the subject.

I was a victim of the marriage monster created by feminism in my 20’s. After a few years it ended in divorce. Now it all makes sense. I went from what was probably a lesser Alpha to Beta provider, my wife grew to despise me and my beta-tude, when the opportunity came she hoped on the nearest Alpha at a conference , and that was that.

To understand what had transpired and make sense of it all, I was attracted to blogs like this, read a lot of studies on gender and sexuality, and learned game. Now as a “survivor” I think I have a pretty good view of marriage through and through.

I would concur with most on this blog, that is our current arrangement with the opposite sex, marriage has little social value. I would also couch that statement by saying that marriage should also not be wholesale blacklisted as a life decision which a man should make. Given the particular personality of a man and their goals within the realm of the sexual marketplace, marriage, properly executed, can have advantages which an individual man may find more advantageous than not. And, mind you, these advantages do not simply appear with the magical words “I do”. It takes proper planning and superb execution to conjure them.

So what is this mystical advantage? I think it is solely that by creating marriage in the right form you create a product that women treat with a higher value than simple cohabitation. This means she will make a greater effort not to “fuck it up”. This means, if played correctly, the man can enjoy more wiggle room in the relationship, can go through longer periods of Beta without punishment, she will generally be more compliant, and you might actually get more sex.

Now, I emphasis this must be properly executed. All the disadvantages, to which there are tons and we all know the list: divorce rape, alimony, fake child abuse accusations, sexist custody awards, “child support” which is a simple income redistribution scheme, and the list goes on and on.

So what is “proper execution”? I think, in brief, it would look something like so:

1. A Pre-Nup is required. No question. No negotiation on this. In most states, other than liberal shit holes like MA, a good lawyer can do you up a solid one that courts will find enforceable. You can effectively shield yourself from things like alimony, unfair distribution of marital property, and paying her legal bill. In most states there is little you can do in the realm of custody or child support, but in some you can build in some minor protections. Of key points to remember though:
– Make her get a lawyer to review and consult her on the pre-nup. This is probably the #1 reason a judge will find it unenforceable.
– Make sure to have it signed, with witnesses and a notary, BEFORE you announce your engagement and at least 90 days before any wedding. Doing this means little chance a claim of “duress” will ever be successful.
– Talk about any changes or contention through the lawyers. Tell her it is NOT a topic of personal conversation.
– Put confidentiality language.
– If the law allows, make it that if a party challenges the pre-nup and is unsuccessful they are on the hook for the legal costs.

One last thing, do not skimp on this area. Pay the legal bill which will be a few grand. It will save you worlds of hassle and cost down the road if anything happens.

2. Setting the tone for the engagement, engagement period, and wedding is key. Tell her through your words and actions that it is to be informal and relaxed. Do NOT make a big deal out of this. If you do it will open up the entitled princess pandora’s box and you are done. Keep the engagement ring most, something that she won’t be embarrassed to show friends but also something that won’t make you go broke. I figured something under $1,000 and probably fake is the way to go. Tell her there will be no endless, female centered, pageantry. No endless showers and parties before the wedding. Then, the wedding is going to be a modest, relaxed affair. Everything during “the process” should be treated as no big deal.

3. When you pop the question is the time you have the most power over her. Women crave that engagement ring more than Golem craved the Ring of Power. They will agree to just about anything and everything just to touch it and hold it. It is this brief moment in time when you get to dictate the terms of the marriage. Do so wisely. The terms henceforth demanded, to which she will agree, will be seared into her mind and forever associated with the euphoric emotion high she is experiencing at that moment in time. Every time she looks at the ring she will revisit those memories and associate them with the terms she committed to.

4. Do the whole engagement/marriage thing. Go on a chill Honeymoon, then come back and live your life. Do not become complacent. Do not shelf your Alpha-ness. If done right, the subtle tone of the whole process along with her year long euphoria will create the product of higher value which you seek. She will be more manageable along with other benefits. And, if it all gets fucked up later, you always have that pre-nup and maybe because you had a crafty lawyer you might end up a few bucks up.

“Keep the engagement ring [modest], something that she won’t be embarrassed to show friends but also something that won’t make you go broke. I figured something under $1,000 and probably fake is the way to go.”

Don’t laugh, but your local Sears actually has very attractive ring sets in the $400-1200 range.

“Tell her there will be no endless, female centered, pageantry. No endless showers and parties before the wedding.”

Little church-in-the-wildwood ceremony followed by reception at the VFW. Check.

“It is this brief moment in time when you get to dictate the terms of the marriage. Do so wisely. The terms henceforth demanded, to which she will agree, will be seared into her mind and forever associated with the euphoric emotion high she is experiencing at that moment in time.”

I like. But I think that you need to be explicit regarding what you expect of your prospective wife before the prenup. She should know her wifely duties and understand that you won’t tolerate her laxing in that regard.

And remember the chemicals, if your girl was on the pill, get her off that shit before you get married. You can probably do it after the proposal, but as we have seen, going off the pill can have…certain effects on her views of you. Realistically, this is just as important as the prenup. If she goes off the pill and in two months, can’t stand you, well, you’ve saved your life.

Best part about your plan of action, Musing Alpha, is the determination to be a forceful agent of change with specific and concrete steps to take, rather than the usual “Men’s Rights Activist” route of nursing grievances and sobbing on each others’ shoulders, which lead to feminized solutions like writing your congressperson and feckless online bitching.

When the opposing forces are at or near their peak — as they are today — a man carves out an exception independent from the culture, inoculates himself from its pernicious influence, and blazes a trail for his brother behind him. You don’t have to dismiss the institution altogether (which, up until fifty years ago was so famously the seat of male power that the de Beauvoir brigade sought to abolish it), as the PUA bible dictates. Neither do you have to accept the perverse Marriage In Name Only of modern feministed bridezilla fantasy, as the regnant coalition of betas and women insist.

No, men don’t drift with the current when there obviously is a waterfall ahead. Rather, we reestablish the predicate of the nuptial arrangement to our advantage, as you suggest above. And in the absence of cultural support (no-fault divorce, celebrated bastardy, consequenceless female adultery, and queens redefining the institution to play house), using private contracts like pre-nups are a brilliant preemptive strike to get the law, already disposed against us, back on our side. Well done.

I got my woman to propose to ME. This was over thirty years ago and we are still married. Every time I get some shite about such-and-such anniversary coming up I remind her the marriage was HER IDEA. So my response is: “Actually, I think you should be the one getting me the anniversary gift.”

I think this is a great strategy and am glad there are still marriage minded men out there. I would only add (perhaps it goes without saying) that one has to be very choosy about the woman. She also has to bring something (besides another income and steady sex) to the table. She should increase the value and quality of your life- as it is expected you increase the value and quality of hers.

I didn’t read the comments yet but I hope somebody has pointed out that the studies should include the health and happiness of divorced men in the “married” category. Or should they just keep getting married and taken to the cleaners for the supposed “benefit” of marriage?

Cohabitation essentially is marriage. It is what our concept of marriage is based on, and “marriage” is only a socially-recognized formalization of the arrangement.

There may be some financial risks to marriage that don’t apply to mere cohabitation, but even the law is bringing the two closer to accordance with each other, and prenups are pretty effective in that regard. DV laws apply whether you are married or not; if you’re accused of attacking a cohabiting girlfriend it’s the same as if it’s a wife. You can now be accused of raping your wife, too. If you’re sleeping with a woman, the law doesn’t discriminate between wives and girlfriends aside from financial issues (which is why prenups are useful). Even custody and child support have little to do with marriage these days.

Given that men don’t earn much more than women these days in general, they have no more to fear from marriage than from living with a woman. The institution has become largely irrelevant, but there’s still the psychological issue. This is why wives get fat and lazy, and men subservient.

The real key to restoring natural marriage, I think, is for men to simply come to understand that marriage doesn’t really impose any extra obligations on them. In fact, I’d argue that women should be more worried about blowing up the marriage than men, because there’s an emergent stigma against single moms and divorced women, who are seen as dangerous sluts. Divorced men, on the other hand, have a cornucopia awaiting them if they can get over the divorce. Women do tend to see willingness to marry once, even if it didn’t work out, as proof that the guy is potential LTR material.

If men only looked upon their marriages as “cohabitation” they’d be much better off, and probably ahead of the game. Of course, there’s always custody issues, but married men don’t have better chances than others. It’s a wash. If you have kids and you break up with the mother, she’ll get them whether you are a good, loyal husband or not (unless she’s in a mental institution or prison, or doesn’t want them, and even then they may try to farm them out to a foster family).

Because marriage is so inconsequential these days, it isn’t really something to be scared of any longer. However, I think men should take advantage of the psychological importance attached to it and make extra demands before signing the contract. Tell the wife you’re not afraid of divorce, and it will make a profound difference in her behavior.

Of course, if you love the woman, who cares about whether the govt. recognizes it or not? Just view marriage as a practical matter. If it’s in your mutual interests (e.g. taxes, EIC, insurance, immigration), go ahead. If not, it doesn’t matter.

Long-term cohabitation is legally the same as marriage, at least as far as legally fucking you up when you end it goes. That’s been true ever since Michelle Triola fucked up Lee Marvin back in the 1970s. That avenue of escape has long been blocked.

Despite which, I’m in favor of marriage, but we need to get legal protections to make it an equal partnership again instead of a system of exploitation. And that can only happen with non-feminist judges and legislators.

Every time you vote liberal, or try to claim “there’s no difference” you’re forging another link in your fetters.

“Palimony” is only available under rare, unusual circumstances, such as where one partner has deceived the other into believing a marriage exists when, in fact, none does. 99%+ of cohabiting couples have nothing to fear from it.

Very true, Ken. Even in the USA from colonial times even until the early 20th century most couples simply had their preacher perform a ceremony and the names were recorded in the family Bible. The girl and the young man then lived together as man and wife.

Also, according to the Ancient Law of the Sea, the captain of a ship can marry a couple. Some of the young men on this blog may wish to try that. I suppose even the captain of one of the “Deadliest Catch” vessels could do the job.

Paperwork, like all cultural support, matters to counteracting the centrifugal forces straining marriage so that its primary mission — the begetting and raising of the next generation’s citizenry — can proceed effectively. This weird idea that marriage is a mere extension of romance, the residue of mutually felt emotion, is destructive to civilization itself, which is why it has been allowed to persist in this age of Marxist feminism. Creative destruction, you see. Speed riddance of the institution so that the state can step into the vacuum, carrying fantasies of forced female egalitarianism.

Marriage is about love, indeed, but you postmoderns have lost your grasp of the very concept of love. Forget who decrees which marriage licenses are valid. First tell me who decreed that love — the engine of the universe that makes the heavens turn — is the equivalent of dreamy-eyed puppy-teenage mutual narcissism? Our generation never grew out of that phase.

Abraham didn’t marry Sarah because he, like, really loves you, babe, and I don’t know what I’d do without you, and you complete me, and you’re my best friend, and being without you is like corn flakes without the milk. He married Sarah to deliver up Isaac, and through his seed create the whole people of God.

“Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them. So shall your descendants be.”

So, you cite probably the worst possible example. More mundane marriages might not be so integral to the cosmic narrative, but they are similarly dependent on a purpose higher than the two individuals’ mate preference or even well-being. We have lost our frame of reference for this idea of marriage. It will be recovered, or we will go extinct, while the brown heathen swarms of the crescent moon who didn’t forget to procreate assume our strand along the thread of existence.

You may have read Stieg Larsson’s book about the dragoon tattoo girl (original Swedish title, Men Who Hate Women.)

Stieg had a live in girlfriend for 30 years. You would think that would quality for something. They never married for some bogus security reason. When he dropped dead at 50, and she went ahead and published “his” books, the books earned megamilions.

Sad part was, there was no will. So, Stieg’s father and brother got ALL the money.

BTW, I saw the American movie version and have read about 1/2 the book. It was written by a woman. No man, for example, would feel like crying after chopping wood for hours in cold weather, as Stieg Larsson writes about his 42 yo healthy male chief character who has a very healthy sex drive. And, the next day not have blisters or muscle stiffness. The author has never chopped wood. Any man knows that violent, strenuous exertion with destructive force makes men as horny as hell. Women will cry under those circumstances to get a male to help them. Dead giveaway.

There are other clues to the fact that a woman wrote this book. So, the ironies care are coming fast and furious in the Dragoon Tattoo saga. A fraudulent thesis (widespread violence against women in Sweden committed by their fathers and social workers (rather than brown immigrants who think white women are whores) , a fraudulent author, a credulous public, and, in the end, the money goes to two men, not the woman who was expecting a fat payday.

You know, this is better than seeing the Ravens get beat by the Patriots. The defeat of the Ravens wasn’t humiliating enough to suit me. But, the treatment of Stieg’s girlfriend is just beautiful.

Ah yes, Stieg Larsson. I liked the books and the three movies
made in Sweden, just watched the last one on DVD.
Pretty good movie making, pretty shitty subtitles, somewhat
unrelated to what is said, I think the translator goes by the
written script, not the actual movie.

But remember, SL was a dedicated Communist. And he throws
in a lot of unnecessary sex to make it more salable.
(The US made first movie is worse). In the book, he goes into
some details about how Erika Berger (female not quite lead)
has ongoing sex with Mikael Blomqvist (sp?), and her husband
knows and does not care at all. Unlikely, even if “Ricky” is
past menopause and presumed not fertile.

To SL:s credit, he does NOT make all industrialists evil,
just a few, and a novelist gets to have a supervillain or two.

So by all means rent the DVDs (all three are out, English subtitles
OR English dubb, you cannot get both funnily enough). But beware
that SL is a self-described riproaring Commie.

Normally your posts are logically flawless but I must point out something. Crucify me if this had already been mentioned but the “marriage is just a bit of paper” argument ignores the fact that a de facto marriage has a stigma in many communities. Marriage is seen as the moral, traditional thing to do to avoid “living in sin”. If marriage truly were just a bit of paper, gay activists wouldn’t be seeking to confer on their relationships, the moral sanction of marriage

Your retarded genealogy of morals in two sentences. Asked and answered, asked and answered, asked and answered a thousand times by a thousand philosophers while you were dozing away in your dogmatic obliviousness. By declaring morality (or “moral sanctity,” whatever that means) “someones agenda” (sic), all you do is confirm your unfamiliarity with the definitional requirements of the topic. But to believe that your ignorance represents a valid challenge — or worse, a pearl of wisdom? That’s willful stupidity, albeit in this case blessedly pithy.

I hate, hate having to fill in the gaps of some lazy old man’s abbreviated education from long ago. Your unsilent existence is an insult to me and everyone like me who learned a goddamn thing.

Get over the freshman-year “nothing other than” and “nearly always” assertion style and then maybe you can converse with the big dogs about big subjects. Until then it will profit you to simply pipe down and listen. Maybe take notes too.

I don’t merely disagree, and if only it were just that “you’re stupid and wrong.”

Yours is a specific type of late-life, impervious stupidity that cannot be argued with. Your kind of wrong can only be ridiculed and bludgeoned into correction. Or, in the likely event your hard-hearted obstinance cannot be corrected intellectually, as a last resort, our job is to establish a quarantine around your brand of infectious idiocy by every means available. Which on a blog are quite limited. So you are allowed to persist in your unembarrassable retard ejaculations.

But again, these are mechanisms going on well above your pay grade. I no more expect you to understand your lot in life than an autistic kid understands others’ emotions. If you couldn’t process the beatdown from my first reply, then you are destined to be epically confused by the meta thumping I am conducting in this one. Carry on.

My windowed father started living with a woman (roughly his age)
many years ago. When I asked him if they were planning to get
married, he said “it is too complicated” (Read: They would lose
some retirement benefits).

So I said, deadpan “so you are planning on living in sin then”.
Guffaw resulted.

But the “it is just a piece of paper” is a ludicrous statement.
There are LOTS of legal consequences, alimony being just
one of them. Marry somebody who makes MUCH less or MUCH
more money than you do and your joint tax bill will be less than
if you both file as singles. Marry somebody at roughly your
income level and you get a “marriage penalty”. Now, I don’t know
if gay marriage counts to the feds, nor in the states that don’t
have it on the books, and the gay couple married elsewhere.

My friend had this problem, he was living with a “domestic partner”
and tried to employee medical benefits for said partner, the company
had a policy of granting it. But he was denied because the “domestic
partner” was, drumroll, a WOMAN. So he asked why he was being
discriminated against for being straight. But it did not work,
he WAS being discriminated against for being straight. They
are now married….

“In the animal world, an overabundance of males can increase competition and skirmishes among would-be suitors seeking scarce partners. Now, a study finds hints that in the human world, too, a male-female imbalance affects complex mating behaviors, causing men to spend their paychecks faster, take on more debt, and increase the amount they would spend to woo a woman.”

The only reason for a man to get married is if both parties are religiously motivated—and only with a rock-solid prenuptial agreement and heavy pre-marriage counseling. Otherwise, there is no good for a man to say I do, only bad.

After a year or so they’ll figure out the game plan when you keep dodging.

The question is how to keep the LTR going while dodging/putting off marriage.

I don’t believe it’s a mere matter of doing it right to get full control of outcome.

Women tend to leave after a while if you don’t formally commit. That is the tendency, that can be moderated by the mans action, but can’t be fully controlled.

I was getting irritated by my girls constant pressuring me to marry her so I flat out told her in the sternest and starkest of terms that I don’t want to marry. At all. Ever. She did what she always does and put a time limit on being with me. She’s twenty two now and gave me until she is 25.

And such an arrangement would be the best case scenario for me. Getting the best years of a womans life, then moving on to the next woman.

You’ve told your girlfriend that you’ll never going to marry her … And then she asked you why … And you told her the truth (“Getting the best years of a womans life, then moving on to the next woman.”) or not?

xsplat–your modus operandi might pass muster here in the states, where presumably both parties are going in with their eyes open.

but to do this in a 3rd world country where any westerner gets the attention of the locals because he’s loaded compared to them and can get a woman easily for that reason, plus plan to discard her when she’s no longer young….well that’s ethically problematic. my bet is that even our famously hedonistic host would have trouble living with himself if he did that.

her situation looks several steps removed, but still uncomfortably close, to that of thai enslaved-in-everything-but-name brothel inmates who are kicked out without a penny once the get old or sick, sometimes killed if they make a fuss.

having said that, i commend you for not infecting her with stds (i assume) as well as your refusal to procreate. indonesian society is pretty brutal to half-breeds, i understand.

He’s no more ruthless, cynical, and manipulative than the average American woman who’s decided to cash in her husband, but waits several months to plan her departure before dropping the boom on her unsuspecting Beta.

Keep up the good work, XSplat. In your own way, you’re evening out the scales of cosmic justice.

Cosmic Justice, bah humbug. There really is no such thing.
Nor could there be. What does the cosmos care???

Specifically, in this case, the deal is to make a poor 3rd world
woman “pay” for shit that women and politicians in the Western
world have ladled out. This is precisely the type of “collective guilt”
that lefties want to push on people who are rich/white/male/Christian/
Republican/Conservative/Libertarian. This kind of logic should
be summarily rejected for the evil collectivist bilge that it is.

Heres the most in-depth PUA breakdown of the “marriage/monogamy offers nothing you can’t get being legally single” concept, with numbers and stats and covering topics like having kids and living arrangements-

I have followed Charles Murray some, and I read the article in the
WSJ the other day.

Not as a value judgement, but as an observation, the great
almost-equality of the mid-1900s was a historical anomaly.
I have read stupid people writing that we now have social
inequalities never before seen, and other factually garbage
statements of the same ilk. 2012 is a LOT more egalitarian
in the US than say 1912. Or any other xx12.

“With marriage, if a man wants to walk away from his family for superficial reasons (an aging wife and desire for someone younger) he will have to pay for it – that makes it less likely that a man will walk out on his wife and kids.” – Neecy

But a woman’s attractiveness and SMV declines as she gets older regardless of whether she is married or has children. What this boils down to is that women want marriage because it is a contract negotiated when women have more SMV than men, but men are still tied to even when the woman’s SMV collapses. Gee, I wonder why some of us men are figuring out that this is a scam rigged against us! Hell, I may as well pay top dollar for a business that will soon go broke.

What you seem to be saying is that men need more sanctions to keep them loyal and faithful. Whereas presumably women don’t need such penalties because they are naturally sweet and loyal creatures, which is amply demonstrated in divorce legal proceedings far and wide. If that is not what you are saying, why frame the issue in gender-specific rather than gender-neutral terms as you do?

The elephant in the room here is how men who are in the process of being rejected by a temporarily high SMV female, despite the man giving his best shot at game up to that point, should remind the rejector of the upcoming switch in status. This is a nuclear neg that can change the situation at the last second, but it’s not written about much here. Instead, there’s the implication that men should just take rejection from those whom they know will cross the SMV trajectory paths soon, effectively leaving the high SMV female to her temporary illusion at the man’s expense.

“Jagger’s lawyers would have argued that their Hindu wedding in Bali in 1991 was invalid.

Lawyers said use of the word “annulment” in the announcement seemed to imply the couple had agreed to the marriage being declared null and void, rather than to a divorce. This would mean the marriage never existed in English law, which would have substantially reduced Hall’s claim.”

1. This post should’ve address cohabitation among the different social classes. The statistics regarding single mothers of lower SES are bound to be far different than that of single mothers in the higher SES.

2. “Single” as categorized in the census does not mean “not in a committed LTR.”

“With marriage, if a man wants to walk away from his family for superficial reasons (an aging wife and desire for someone younger) he will have to pay for it – that makes it less likely that a man will walk out on his wife and kids.” – Neecy

But if marriage actually benefited men, there would be no need to compel men to stay married through the threat of being penalized if they leave their wife. Men would just stay married as they were onto a good thing. You only need penalties if there is not enough positive incentive.

Traditionally, societies have tried to encourage men to marry through a combination of carrots and sticks. Now there are no carrots. The solution? We need more sticks, dammit! Big sticks! More shaming and social ostracism of men who don’t ‘man up’! More penalties for men who want to divorce!

“And I’ve found that, what I now want the most in a woman is—I want a partner. I want someone who is my partner in life. Who supports me, and I support her. I can share all my experiences in life with her, and she can share hers back with me. Not only do we love each other, but we accept, embrace, nurture, and care for each other.”

Show me one of these high flyers who didn’t follow the same path out of “the game.” The creepy New Age nuptials of David DeAngelo and his fucked-out ugly whorewife should have been enough to give even the eagerest gameboy pause. Where is the elder statesman who demonstrates how to behave once the wild oats have been sown and harvested and sown again and harvested again?

[heartiste: i think for hardcore players it will be very difficult to settle down into anything resembling a conventional lifestyle, i.e. wife and kids and dog in the burbs. they just aren’t wired that way. however, i believe mystery has sort of dropped a gear, and had a kid with a stripper whom he’s currently seeing exclusively, but someone can correct me if i’m wrong. style has been in and out of monogamous LTRs. as for deangelo… judge not the message by the meessenger’s peculiar life trajectory. his cocky/funny stuff — which was really a whole bunch of other guys’ game material brought together under his DYD umbrella — is solid gold, even if he personally has married a tranny and now professes bisexuality.
ps supposedly bisexual men have more female sex partners than straight men. this doesn’t surprise me. i imagine bis are very attuned to the female sensibility, and know how to push women’s buttons.]

It’s not the fact that he’s trying to settle down. It’s the fact that he’s losing all the mojo that made him attractive to women in the first place.

If you read the forbes article (just a bit, it’s too freaking long), tucker max is apparently turning into a complete beta. Going for the one and true love is alright in my book, but not at the price of losing the masculine essence that’s gonna make the woman happy.

As for david deangelo, I’m still shocked by what he’s done. Bisexual or not.

Same here. tucker was a pro gina tingler. He’s now turning into a deluded patsy.

I think that’s the path of many naturals. They spend their 20s treating women like shit because that’s what their genes compel them to do. And when their testosterone levels start to slightly decline, they turn into weeping betas, repenting for all their past mistakes, and falsely believing that women truly want them to expose their soft side.

That’s why the red pill should be mandatory for betas and natural alphas alike. You need the deep understanding of female nature, as professed in the chateau, to tame women’s raging hypergamy. Whether one chooses the player’s lifestyle, or the path of the one eternal love.

[heartiste: nicely said. it’s a good bet tucker max’s marriage, should he accede to one, will end in divorce.]

This is getting at an important game consideration that no PUA seems to be talking about. God bless the pick-up prophets for the supreme intensity of their mission focus: because of that focus, thousands of chumps have been elevated out of their chumpdom and give testimony to the truth of the gospel of game. But also because of that focus, PUAs miss the forest for the trees. And badly.

What young rising alpha will trade even a solid decade of unconstrained partytime if it results in him becoming a neutered former-braggart so confused by women that he repudiates in deed the prime of his life, or worse, finds himself a demi-homo married to a he-she? The end product of the PUA transformation can discredit the entire process. That’s why the end-result — “What are we ultimately trying to accomplish here?” — deserves greater study and more integration into the ethos.

“[T]he red pill should be mandatory for betas and natural alphas alike. You need the deep understanding of female nature….” Spot on. This is an argument for expanding game theory well past pick up science.

Game is not childish, though it first develops in our youth. It is not rogue boyishness on steroids as exemplified by Tucker Max. Game is men claiming their prerogative whatever the circumstance, which in the early stages is naturally engrossed by the opposite sex. This makes game seem inextricable from the sweet tension between the sexes when in fact game has the power to conquer and neutralize that tension if and when men grow weary of the monotonous squabble, as Max just did.

Game that transcends the stages of life allows neutralization to be done on the man’s terms, rather than acquiescence out of exhaustion and unfamiliarity with one’s options. If we are inclined to regard game as exclusive to the snatch catch, then we will begin regarding its techniques as the unique possession of a different phase in life. “Oh, those were just tricks to get pussy, not to defeat my rival for market share or bring men together for great projects.”

The problem with thinking the game can go on in perpetuity — “On with the dance! let joy be unconfined; / No sleep till morn” — is that “morn” always comes, and the contextual claims of ex-gamesters can appear discredited among apprentices.

What’s wrong with acknowledging…

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. …

Can’t game be adjusted from the third age of “the lover” to the fourth and fifth ages of “the soldier” and “the justice”? Must we pretend “Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad / Made to his mistress’ eyebrow” is the summum bonum of a man’s life no matter the age?

Tucker Maxian bluster has an obvious expiration date in any man who is aware of the probability of patheticness when stretching too far back from his age. Maybe we can stretch back farther than the cultural commissars led us to believe, and blessed be our liberation. But there are definite limits of chronology, soft and ambiguous and individually manifested though they may be. The fellow who disbelieves the expiration altogether is the king of a nutshell he mistakes for the whole world. It doesn’t have to be this way.

(True, the hammer of “age-appropriate” has been used by feminists for purposes of shame-discipline so cravenly and so clumsily that it is easier for independent-minded men to dismiss the idea of age propriety altogether. But since when do we take our cue from the coven of cackling cunts?)

Game would be strengthened by contemplating the stages of manhood, by anticipating the inevitable adjustments that must be made rather than having them foisted on us by surprise. A young man’s game is simply different from an old man’s.

The Max/DeAngelo syndrome is the result of ill-preparation and half-baked philosophy. So much of their shtick is superfluous, so much is unnecessary for and contrary to the pick-up mission itself, and positively deadly upon “retirement” from the game. If it is merely an expression of a young man’s mentality, then retirement becomes possible if not inevitable. But female nature never retires. Game applies to marriage and to women bosses just as much as it does to club slags and party coeds. Game should broaden with an improving man’s constantly broadening horizons. It shouldn’t be a dusty used condom packed away in Wooderson’s memory chest for him to fondly reflect on his glory days. It should be integral to a man’s identity, no more easily cast aside than his ability to speak, or eat, or breathe. Glory is not exclusive to one stage of life, though it arrives more easily in some. It is a permanent end-goal against which a man relentlessly defines himself. Glory is not then, glory is now. A fulsome, constantly expanding glory that grows along with the man.

Applying game to pussy is the easy part. Exclusively applying it to pussy turns you into Tucker Max, who is now more vulnerable to feminist machinations than he can fathom possible. I just don’t understand the community’s insistence on so narrow a focus and so limited an application of such a powerful instrument of liberation. It seems like a herd instinct nudged us here, through the least common denominator of our dumb dick meat, in the absence of true leadership. Yes use it to pull the poon, but unless you’re in thrall to a debilitating sex-addiction (and by “debilitating” I mean: he slithers down the slippery slope to dude canoodling), what’s the fear in expanding the technique beyond the stifling inanities of female society?

Women aren’t the only ones to respond to alpha. Men do too. When you consider that men working together have created the wonders of the world, you realize we’ve only scratched the surface here. There are other worlds to conquer.

“They spend their 20s treating women like shit because that’s what their genes compel them to do. And when their testosterone levels start to slightly decline, they turn into weeping betas, repenting for all their past mistakes, ”

I’ve never followed Tucker Max, and given GBFM’s use of his name and bedroom practices as a symbol for all that is most evil in this world am disinclined to start, but this reminds me of those yidden from the Beastie Boys.

They started as a raucous punk outfit with gritty hardcore lyrics, which back then contained a lot that is now “hate speech”, and partly carried over into their stint with Def Jam, the epic anti-white label that first brought menacing ghetto beats to the ears of white youth through MTV. About ten years ago they apologized for their misogyny, and today, Adam Horowitz is married to none other than Kathleen Hannah.

Who I fucked in a Richmond apartment one night when she was “he raped me” drunk and smelled of the McDonald’s fries she was slinging all day, and she still looked like this.

It’s like that girl finding god after whoring around in her 20s, right? (Or even better, being diagnosed with the spread-legs-victim syndrome of the day.) Thus, after having a personal revelation that he rhymes with goldman hex, Tucker is now a changed man, etc etc, and can be finagled into polite dinners.

No. With the advent of contraceptives, marriage is the only way to guarantee a man will have children with a high quality partner.

A high-IQ woman will not have a man’s children without a marriage contract, so it’s a question of high-fitness progeny or low-fitness progeny.

Furthermore, remember the Greek story where the King banishes his son because the Oracle says the son will kill the King?

Marriage keeps a son loyal to his father so that when the father is old and decrepit his son Does Not Behead Him.

The truth is cohabitation always ends because a woman can never stay young forever, while the man can go on to greener pastures. But a Momma’s Boy is forever…..so if you want to get beheaded by your son…especially if you are dating women your son’s age…..Intergenerational Conflict Between Men….

Marriage wasn’t forced upon men…It Evolved for a reason. (now the feminists….that’s another story…)

Also, the last sentence of the study kinda shows the researchers Bias….and I would also want to make sure that the Cohabiting Couples and the Married Couples have No Children……as depression in a marriage could be caused by children….So if the study was cohabiting couples with no children versus married couples with Children that isn’t fair…..(I’m too lazy to click on the study)

It really did happen. See e.g. Haus ohne Hüter by Heinrich Böll, 1954.
The men that survived had such a surfeit of female attention that
they did not particularly want or need to commit.

My father travelled in Germany from time to time in the 60s and
70s. The age group born roughly 1905 to 1930 was mostly GONE,
the men that is. The people he talked to were either old men
(i.e. much older than dad, b. 1922, going on 90 now) or young
squirts.

This is well known. What is less well known outside Germany is that
the solution – of sorts – was that the older men born in the late
1800s and early 1900s dumped their wives and married 20-30
somethings. (And Lindbergh had a couple of German families
on the side – it was great to be male and even better to be
a famous foreigner ). So Germany fixed up its demographics.
But it didn’t last, like most of Europe Germany is now going through
a population collapse, or would be except for immigration. Even
worse then the US.

This comment may have been true 40 years ago, but with modern marriage and today’s family courts, a marriage license is no guarantee of fit progeny . A woman can divorce her husband and assume custody almost as quickly as a live-in girlfriend can move out, so I don’t follow your argument.

This is painfully obvious. Most of the tradcon social order is an attempt by those who seek social control above all else to fool men into being “responsible”. By giving women what women want, we serve society and maintain order and civilization.

The feminist revolution was an attempt to balance the scale in favor of women due to perceived bias in favor of men. But the bias in favor of men was always the “treat” given to the poor dogs who needed to pull the wagons.

Women got the treats – but don’t want to pull the wagons. Who would?

Now the dogs don’t get the treats; and the women complain they won’t pull the wagon.

This unbelievably basic and obvious fact seems to be escaping feminists. They fought the wrong enemy. Their true enemy was themselves.

Tradcons want to put the cat back in the back.

I say fuckem’.

This arrangement is pretty good for me, and all the men I know.

As a bonus, it’s no longer women first on a sinking ship. How great is this for men?

Thanks to Marx, Nietzsche, Fagcoult, Dorkins, Mill, in the heads of the ordinary and unintelligent (see link below for e.g.), spreading like intellectual cancer, we’re on the road to barbarism.

Game is good in that it will accelerate civil society’s destruction. Heartiste’s plan is to get as many people to revel in the illogical world the (essentially) marxists have created, and then, after the descent, I think he thinks that civilisation will rise again, stronger, having learnt that wimmens suffrage is something very stupid indeed.

Feminism is the greatest gift to men ever. When will men finally realize this?

At one point, we were dogs to be ensnared and abused; the benefits of “patriarchy” for almost all men were just treats thrown to work dogs. Women only saw the alpha males (these are the only men they ever see; 80% of men are utterly invisible to them, little more than furniture, no matter how hard they look). They envied the alpha males, and wanted the treats. So they got them.

So men are denied the treats now.

Now, women curse the situation: the dogs, denied treats, no longer want to work; and the women must work for the treats, as men fail to want to give them up for free.

No matter how hard a feminist tries, she can’t deny this very obvious truth. In a real sense, equity feminism is far more liberating for men than it is for women: Women lose the substantial advantages they had. Without these advantages, the vast majority of women who are non-feminists bitterly complain. But more and more men are buying into the equalist propaganda.

Look: Now we can say, monogamy is female slavery. Male slavery too. I’m against slavery. This exactly plays into male reproductive strategy.

Instead of resisting feminism, men, you need to embrace *equalist* feminism. I dont’ mean the new version: Special Victim Feminism, wherein women are eternal, helpless children in need of protection and men are Satan’s Demons. Oddly, feminism has gone through equality and come out into Marxist Victimology, so that women can do no wrong and men can do no right, and it’s all about redistribution in one direction.

Call them on it.

Then, when the woman wants the door open for her, shame her. What? You sad, pathetic child; you’re an adult just like me. Shoulder the same burden. You are in all ways my equal: I expect nothing less than full agency from you.

When you do this ,several things happen.

One: The dating market plays wholly to men’s favor. Monogamy starts to sound an awful lot like slavery. So long as women are the same as men, then they should want STRs and casual sex as much as men; but this resolutely refuses to be true. So, in denying the basic sexual differences between men and women, feminists utterly betray women to male sexual appetites.

Another basic biological truth feminists refuse to admit. They will go to their graves denying it.

*THIS IS GOOD FOR US*

These feminists are our friends. Far from whining like little babies about it, about the absurd privileges we lost (who wanted them, anyway?), glory in freedom.

You owe women

NOTHING

You owe your current sexual partner

EXACTLY

what she owes you.

Pay nothing more. ALl exchanges can be equal.

Look, guys. Historically, we all paid for pussy through the nose. Either resources, time, energy or commitment; taxes; we paid for the right to marry and sire children. Fuck it all. it was all a very, very raw deal for men.

I realize down this road leads the end of civilization, but our femocracy refuses to see it, so CR’s philosophy seems the most sensible.

The one creed you must reject is the traditional conservative one. The entire philosophy was meant to rope men into indentured servitude. There was no redeeming feature for it from the interest of men. Face this fact. You were expected to be expendable, useful idiots for the continuing development of the social order to benefit a few alpha males and their harems.

Fuck’em.

The feminists showed us the way: Fuck’em. Fuck’em all.

You owe no-one anything. You owe nothing. You owe society nothing; you owe no resources to any woman unless you, at this moment, choose to share them, likely in exchange.

This model feminists have created so utterly betrays basic female interests it’s shocking they haven’t strung the feminists up themselves. If you think about it, the whole tanking of the value of pussy on the dating market is the sign of this. Expect the value of pussy to bottom right out before women complain more loudly.

All the whining about “girls being forced to be sexual because of men” is beside the point: They frame everything in terms of evil men good girls. What it means is this: A woman who holds out with a guy loses because the girl next door is willing to put out. And you CAN’T shame the girl who puts out, because sluttitude is now freedom.

So as a woman you either accept your unfettered sluttitude (and the same from men) or you shut the fuck up and crawl off and die in some PC-designed silence chamber. You’re not allowed to talk.

Hello, Jessica Valenti et al.

Men, stop killing the golden goose. The women themselves lowered the price of pussy so far it’s now within reach of more or less everyone.

Stop whining about the bottomless bag of goodies. Learn how to do it and go get some. Don’t be babies.

And the next time a ship is sinking, make sure you tell the woman beside you, “First one in the boat gets in. Good luck to you, my equal. Did I tell you I owe you nothing? I’m going to treat you exactly like one of the guys.”

Make them swallow their own pill, no more, no less. A genderless future.

Men: This is your golden age. Realize this and navigate carefully. Steer clear of the shoals of the false rape accusation and the paternity suit. Deny the marriage license bandits. Leap over the hurdles of monogamy blackmail.

Somebody should make the case that divorce law, despite being
on the face gender-neutral, has a disparate impact on men
and we demand equality in the sense that on average the sums
going from men to women should be similar to the money going
from women to men.

The current sex positive feminist ideology and age is good for SOME men, though a fairly small minority.

It’s great for all levels of alpha men, perhaps the top 15% in sexual attractiveness to women, particularly the ones who like to be players, but very bad for beta males and omegas (who have always had things tough), who can’t participate in much if any casual sex with cute and hot girls, 6’s on up, who are doing that only with alpha guys, and have a very hard time getting girls their own sex rank to want to be into LTR’s or even marriage with them while in their 20’s, without cheating on them with alphas. When 5’s, 6’s and 7’s are ready to marry as they’re approaching or over 30, past their prime, yeah they may marry some kind of beta in his 30s of their own sex rank (finally giving him sex), but many of the girls in the big cities will have ridden the alpha cock carousel, and be rather sexually underwhelmed by the beta provider they end up settling for – leading to low rates of sex for the married beta after awhile, high rates of her cheating with an alpha, and high rates of divorce.

It’s somewhat bad for HB8 girls (bad for the marriage minded ones but not the 20 something party minded ones), but quite bad for HB9’s if they’re marriage as opposed to party minded in their 20’s.

It’s good for party girl 6’s and 7’s who want to slut it up with alphas in their twenties, lying to themselves that they’ll get one to commit eventually, rather than marrying a beta their own sex rank before they hit 30. It’s bad however for the likely happiness of their marriages.

All of this is what’s changed from earlier eras. There still are girls that mostly don’t slut it up in their teens and twenties and do spend those years in LTR’s and then marriage before 30. Just not as high a proportion.

¨The current sex positive feminist ideology and age is good for SOME men, though a fairly small minority.¨

The current social tinkering has gotten to the point where it is becoming good for almost all men. Betas just need a little more cynicism and backbone; the ch-explosion will keep helping more and more of them.

Great post Gorbachev!

And yea

Fuck if I will fight against the ever improving future. If women want some semblance of the way things were, it´s their fight. I´m done. Time to enjoy.

We are getting so far down the rabbit hole that some of us with memories of a past time are going to be completely shocked. Once women have a liberation that is almost 100%, the lack of shame we will eventually see is going to be monumental. It´s just some remnants of the past that are maintaining the older women with some shame still, and it is the older ones that are capable of acts that would make a sailor blush.

I´m not against the future path we are about to embrace; the last 50 or so years has been a hard pill for men to swallow, but we are about over the hump. Most men who have weathered their difficult youths in these socially tumultuous times will probably be able to fend well for themselves. Some younger men will have a hard go of it, but of course, what doesn´t kill you, makes you stronger.

Having forsaken our grand traditions, we daily see examples of equality being finally delivered to women; this will just continue until I expect maybe after another 20-30 years they are screaming for a return to these traditions? Men are happier than women living a basic? existence. Women are not, but the machine that provided them their former glory looks broke to me?
A warning,

If you are trying to be a traditional man in these untraditional times,

“But we are about over the hump. Most men who have weathered their difficult youths in these socially tumultuous times will probably be able to fend well for themselves. Some younger men will have a hard go of it, but of course, what doesn´t kill you, makes you stronger.”

I vehemently disagree. If anything, the hump is getting bigger. There is a strong, and growing celibate, or nearly celibate, beta male underclass among highschool and college age young men. There is an entire group of young guys that have been lied to and are completely ill equipped in how to deal with the modern woman. They’ve been brought up by spineless beta males, and the schools have taught them how bad male sexuality is, and that women are perfect angels. And most of them have been so brainwashed, that they would unilaterally disregard any information on this site, or sites like it. I think this could be approaching 40-50% of all “men” in this age group. I know, because I am part of this group.

Yeah Matt, I’m with you. I was in that age group many moons ago, but everything I read on game, MRA and other blogs on the net, and hell even at Susan Walsh’s blog for the most part, is consonant with what you’re saying, and what I said above.

Gorb and I have read each other a lot on this and other blogs in the sphere and I’m quite sure he’d mostly agree with what I said in response. He was writing from the point of view of a guy who’s learned to be alpha. He was probably in S.Korea too when he wrote it. He makes out like a bandit there. A white guy alpha in a pretty good money, very socially cool line of work, plus he speaks Korean now at least more or less.

Great article. Let me say that I enjoy all of your article very much. I think you have a very good understanding of human nature and how it relates to the battle of the sexes. I find myself nodding in agreement as I read your various articles. That being said, I was fortunate enough to have a pretty good understanding of female nature myself. As a result, my twenties were great. Sex sex and more sex with women of all different backrounds and shapes. I don’t think many men realize just how easy it can be to bed down with solid 7’s and 8’s. I am married now, however I still work abit of game. I openly flirt with waitresses, I openly compliment other women in the presence of my wife, and I regularly try to motivate my wife to lose a few pounds that she put on during her two pregnancies. Women are alot like children, if you want them to be decent, you have to give them goal to reach, and the motivation to accomplish those goals. Now it is not all negative. If it was she might leave. It is just negative enough to where she understands that I am a man with many options should I choose.

No, marriage was invented to prevent either party from reproductively exploiting one another.)

JMHO: The original reason for marriage was to make it easier for the courts to decide who, meaning which male, inherits the dead guy’s property. Something that wasn’t needed before farming. Women couldn’t exploit men because they were the property of their husbands and the kids belonged to him as well. It also wasn’t needed for the Proles until the Industrial Revolution, because they didn’t own anything worth dividing in court.

~ ~ ~

One man’s experience is just a data point, but I have run a long experiment with one woman. The first 5 years we lived apart, and I continued to do a moderate amount of discrete fucking on the side. During that time we spent 2 or 3 night a week together and always had several rounds of hot sex, and often one more for the road in the morning. She was on the pill and would give me long and lovely hand/blow jobs when it was “That time of the month.” It made her happy to make me happy.

Then we moved in together and it quickly became one round of sex, 2 or 3 times a week, with the occasional round two, and descended from there. After 10 years of co-habitation, we got married, bought a house and started to try to have a kid. Sex had already been reduced to one round, once a week on Saturday night, unless it was “That time of the month.”, which meant no action. The quest for a kid revitalized her desire and we had sex lots, often several times a night.

After the kid was born, there was sporadic sex for a few years as it slowly merged with zero.

The sex before we moved in together was always great. If you were to graph my sexual enjoyment (Quality x Quantity), there would be a long flat part of the curve at a high level until we began living together, with a sudden drop in quality and quantity after that, and then a long, slow decline to zero, with a big blip during the trying to get pregnant phase.

During the whole time, I would have been good to go for at least once a night, but the wife lost interest.

I don’t know which cave heartiste has been living in, but cohabitation is already treated like marriage and feminist-regulated like marriage in most states of the US and Canada. Men have no more options to be free anymore except non-cohabitation long term relationships

A couple I know just broke up after about 11 years together. They lived together, never felt the need to go before a priest or JOP. The city they live in has liberal “domestic partnership” laws which they took advantage of for health care, etc. Beyond that, when the breakup occurred, all the guy did was move out. End of story. (No kids.)

Scary conclusion to the host’s post. Watch out for a new judicially modified form of common law marriage, eh? I did find the idea of marrying your male buddy to be funny…although, us traditional marriage types should abuse the gay marriage lie to expose it for the idiocy it is. Marry your roommates to get extra tax breaks, etc. I guess the next direction for the host is to list the type of reversible vasectomy procedures out there, to avoid ponying up 10% of your pay for a bastard (until you move to a favorable state to procreate).

I think you’re common law in Canada after two years and can be liable for partner support/division of assets without even being married. You can also import common law. I suppose once men decide they want to marry less and less, only the definition of marriage will change.

Just like Ayn Rand said (paraphrasing): Only criminals are under the control of the government, so the government must in turn, turn more and more people into criminals.

Marriage confers legal protections to the wife but also puts obligations her at the same time. In the event of divorce the children went with the parent most capable of protecting them – the father, By putting all obligations on the husband as well as switching the custodial parent, they have destroyed the institution completely. Nowadays, unless you belong to an extremely religious group that uses social coercion to maintain the husbands position, a religious man would probsbly be better off thinking very long and hard before marrying anyone.

Marriage was the bedrock of the society, it gave men both purpose, strength, and hope. Nowadays? Oh brother.

[…] Ferdinand Bardamu on January 25, 2012in Sex muses on how cohabitation provides the same benefits as marriage, for men at least:The reasoning is simple: the pro-marriage studies are conflating the benefit of living with someone […]

[…] In the churn, sentiments rise and fall. A once-jovial, if acidly so, soul laments sitting deckside. A contrarian realist finds optimism. Even the Dark Lord is not wholly immune and has extolled the virtue of union. […]